Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for September, 2011

“Make no mistake about it, we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed–not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”

– Noel Ignatiev

From Article 2 of “The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” :

“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; [Emphasis mine]
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

One of the ways you can justify destroying an ethnic group is, of course, to argue that the group in question does not actually exist. That is the purpose of ‘Whiteness Studies”.

Leftists have openly stated their intention to move non-whites into white countries, in numbers sufficient to completely alter the ethnic and cultural composition of the country, and to bring about social conditions which would facilitate ‘integration’, which necessarily and unavoidably includes intermarriage.

They have worked to impose these demographic changes in EVERY white country and ONLY white countries.

Arguing that the white race is a ‘social construct’ is an attempt to cover up the fact that they are engaged in committing genocide.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same…. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia…. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think…. The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

– Senator Ted Kennedy, speaking on the 1965 Immigration Act

That’s gotta set the record for the most lies told in a 60-second period.

It is  obvious that Kennedy heaped lie upon lie here. I didn’t post this quote just for that. I wanted to make the point that at that time (1965) American politicians actually believed it was necessary to tell this lie. Average white Americans really thought that the country SHOULD be white.

This is the story of demographic genocide wherever you look in white countries. In some European countries the politicians said that the non-whites moving in were just guest workers, only to stay for 15 years or so. Then they became permanent residents. Politicians 40 years ago never told us they were going to completely destroy our societies because they knew we would have protested.

These were the lies that were told to millions of whites, especially more ‘conservative’ or right wing whites in order to trick them into accepting this demographic Trojan Horse.

And now that they’re here they tell us we are building a tolerant, harmonious country. (Except that white people don’t have the right to exist). The whole concept of what America is supposed to be is a fraud.

So many things in America are fake. Fake reality TV, fake politicians, fake food, fake breasts, fake money, fake wealth and fake tolerance.

Read Full Post »

I’m sure that about 100 years ago believing that America ought to be a white country was considered so normal that no one even argued the point. But in the 60’s we saw a change in the message from the media and in short order, believing that America should be white became anathema. A big change was the transformation of the Democratic party in the 60’s into one that would increasingly be opposed to white interests.

As that became apparent, whites who had some racial feelings began to vote for the Republican party because they believed, either consciously or unconsciously, that it was the party which would represent white peoples interests.

Many of the so-called ’red meat‘, capital ‘C’ conservatives have, for decades, been crypto-pro-white. A lot of the people who got Reagan into office were from the John Birch Society and other such organizations. This element within conservatism has been around for as long as it’s been socially unacceptable for whites to care about their race. Yeah, that long. One of the chief eunuchs of our modern, castrated conservative movement, William F. Buckley, once said “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.”

Leftists have, in spite of themselves, managed to hit on a bit of truth when they say Republicans are ‘racist’ (which for leftists simply means ‘pro-white’). Some of them really are.

These people have either been consciously pro-white, but not in public (for fear of being called ‘racist’ or losing their job), or they were engaged in a little self-deception; convincing themselves that they really believed in those abstract ideals of low taxes, low immigration, small government and so on. When in fact all of those policies are in the interests of whites.

I believe the latter group to be quite large. White people are clearly capable of thinking and saying ‘diversity is wonderful’ whilst moving away from it as soon as they can and resettling in some lily white suburb. (And then sitting in front of the television and watching the multi-racial CSI team nab another sadistic white male rapist).

These people still turn out in invisible droves to vote for whatever Republican candidate is on the ticket. Many of them, just doing it because they feel they have no other option and some of them, so stupid that they really think that party will, in some veiled or accidental way, benefit whites.

But America is 60 or so percent white and Heidi Klum chose not to abort that bastard child – time is short. It’s time for these crypto-racists to come out of the closet. If they have been consciously pro-white they need to vote like it and support pro-white political parties, like the A3P. If none are running in their area then support pro-white organizations financially or otherwise. (And breed damn you, breed!)

And if you’ve been deceiving yourself into thinking that you’re really just a ‘patriotic American’ then try this : Just picture a nice, traditional American neighbourhood. White picket fences, green, manicured lawns, good schools and safe streets. Big beautiful houses that are entirely or mostly paid for because the occupants have not spent their lives being hampered with high taxes to pay for illegal aliens from Mexico, incorrigible inner-city scum, and wars for Israel. Everyone there is white and no one hates you. Admit it, you like it.

And you might as well admit it now because you’re going to admit it eventually – and you KNOW IT. And you’re going to have to admit it eventually because America is 60 or so percent white and the people who run our society have openly stated that they will not stop until America is filled with 3rd worlders and you no longer have a demographic sanctuary to call your own.

And if you think that voting for the Republican party will ultimately preserve the white majority and its way of life, I have one question for you : “How’s that workin’ out for ya?”.

Read Full Post »

While reading the mission statement of National Review, penned in 1955 by Bill Buckley, in a distant America which may have been worth conserving, I came across an expression that I had heard quoted before. It is a kind of slogan for Buckley’s conservative views. National Review “… stands athwart history, yelling stop …”, said Buckley.

This was an odd way of summarizing your approach to things, I thought.

Conservatism is about conserving things; institutions, morals and so on. I found this explained quite well in a metaphor used by Edmund Burke, considered to be the progenitor of conservatism, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France. He likened the actions of the mad revolutionaries of France to crazed children, healing the wounded patient by cutting him into pieces :

“To avoid, therefore, the evils of inconstancy and versatility, ten thousand times worse than those of obstinacy and the blindest prejudice, we have consecrated the state, that no man should approach to look into its defects or corruptions but with due caution, that he should never dream of beginning its reformation by its subversion, that he should approach to the faults of the state as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solicitude. By this wise prejudice we are taught to look with horror on those children of their country who are prompt rashly to hack that aged parent in pieces and put him into the kettle of magicians, in hopes that by their poisonous weeds and wild incantations they may regenerate the paternal constitution and renovate their father’s life.”

For the length of the 19th century and much of the 20th century one could make a good argument that this was the proper approach. We agreed that reforms were needed, but we opposed simply destroying everything which came before in order to make society anew. We would proudly inherit our cultural and political birthright, and continue it’s traditions, whilst modifying or discarding anything defective.

But in 2011 there is little left to conserve. And this brings me back to Buckley’s mission statement. When I hear this “standing athwart history” phrase I can’t help but think that it is accepting, from the start, the Marxist concept (from Hegel) of the historical process. The idea that history is developing towards some inevitable ideal system which, in the case of Buckley’s leftist opposition, is a socialist society. This use of the word ‘history’ conjures up images of some huge, unstoppable force, like a great tide rolling towards the shores of America, and the conservative standing tiny before it, arms raised, yelling ‘stop!’ And of course, the wave crashes upon him and swallows him whole.

"... culturally, socially and demographically, conservatism has elevated defeat to an art form."

This seems to be the mentality of a born loser. And indeed, that is what conservatism has excelled at since 1955 – losing. The Republicans may win around 50% of the time, but culturally, socially and demographically, conservatism has elevated defeat to an art form.

If you could cherry pick two dates to mark the beginning of America’s destruction and its completion, 1955 and 2008 would be as fitting as any. The former being the date National Review was founded, the later – the year of Buckley’s death. Although the office of the Presidency is not in itself important (all the crucial stuff has been settled before you take office), it is fitting that Buckley died in the very year that the symbolic god of the leftists was elected. Given conservatism’s almost fetishistic love of losing, which Buckley no doubt shared, I’m sure he would not have wanted it any other way.

Conservative’s have done nothing to stop any of the left’s corruptions, namely, non-white immigration. And it is this key demographic threat which Sam Francis’s “Majority Strategy” aims to hold at bay. I have already addressed this strategy in a previous post, but only mention it again to highlight it’s main gaping flaw : The idea that we can halt the prevailing trend and preserve something of value.

We cannot and should not halt the prevailing trend because that trend is not eroding some well established foundation, but has progressed to the point where it is approaching its final stage. That being the destruction of the majority position held by whites in the West, and the institution of a hopelessly diverse tower of Babel incapable of functioning for any purpose other than in service to the aliens and traitors who engineered this demographic genocide in the first place.

Approaching our opposition as a united force is unnecessary as they are nothing of the sort. We can more easily defeat them by using their own diversity against them and turning their snarling hatred, uncriticized by so-called ‘anti-racists’, on each other. The lesson we must learn is that diversity truly is our strength. As it has always been the strength of those who could manipulate it most effectively to their advantage.

We should not stand athwart the deluge yelling ‘stop’ when we can learn to redirect it in such a way that it would divide the disparate groups arrayed against us and thus destroy the basis for our oppressors political power. And that touches on another issue conservatives should understand. We are not the establishment. It is no longer conservative to want to ensure a cultural inheritance for our posterity, nor is it conservative to ensure that we even have a posterity. It is revolutionary. It is against every established opinion and policy of our society. And once we recognize the revolutionary nature of our politics, we will shed this enfeebled dissent and replace it with something fiercer.

But with a slogan like Buckley‘s, the most resounding victory to be scored is to stand athwart history yelling ‘slow down’.

Read Full Post »

At the recent NPI conference, Richard Spencer mentioned something called the “Majority Strategy“, which was originally proposed by Sam Francis, and has since been taken up by Peter Brimelow and Steve Sailer. In a nutshell, it says that the Republican party is dreaming if it thinks it can curry favour with blacks or Hispanics; it can only win elections if it focuses on the white vote.

This is very true; the Republican party would benefit greatly at the polls by appealing to white voters. And like precious few other things in life, this is easier done than said. All they have to do is push the one unifying policy that whites broadly approve of – immigration restriction (which to white people really means “non-white immigration restriction“). But of course, it’s unlikely they’ll even do that, since the leadership of the Republican party doesn’t care about white people.

I feel I have to mention before I continue that when reading the articles explaining this strategy, I get the impression that the authors seem to be more interested in using whites to help the Republican party survive than using the Republican party to help whites survive, but I digress.

"Whites will have to stick together or they’ll be eaten alive."

One thing I like in this approach is that it recognizes the obvious point that white Americans are a pretty homogeneous group and can be united, not only on issues such as demographic genocide (immigration), but also on things like anti-white discrimination (affirmative action), and a host of other policies that screw over whitey. Politically, this is the way forward. Whites will have to stick together or they’ll be eaten alive.

But the strategy misses a pretty huge issue. Yes, whites are a homogeneous group that should have their racial interests represented by the Republican party (or another party if the GOP is unwilling) but Sailer and Brimelow treat the left as if it is some monolithic, tightly regimented army of people willing to fight and die together for their common welfare (no pun intended). The left is far from united. Theirs is a motley crew of blacks, Hispanics, feminists, homosexuals and a hundred other small bands of the nieve and degenerate who form the ‘mystery meat’ section of the social progress cafeteria. They have nothing in common except that they are greedily striping hunks of meat off the same carcass. And if the alien/traitor elite that decides who gets how much distributes things unfairly, there will be a minor scuffle between the squawking vultures.

Also, it is well known among people who have had contact with Obama’s America that Hispanics absolutely hate blacks. And no doubt the feeling is mutual. The hilarious thing is, while blacks and Hispanics are kicking the crap out of each other, your local leftist professor is concerned about things like ‘white skin privilege’ and ‘unconscious racism’.

My problem with Sailer and Brimelow’s approach is that even if they got their “Majority Strategy” and the Republican party gained enough power to shut down all non-white immigration forever, the people that are responsible for the 1965 immigration act and the vast 3rd world population which it ushered in would still be in power. How are you going to deal with them? Debate them Jared Taylor style? That aint gonna work. Debate is for two parties who want the same thing but disagree on how to get it. This is a fight. They want to eliminate us and we must survive. We can’t simply stop and then repair what they have done. We have to destroy them completely so that they can never do this again.

And in order to do this, any legitimate pro-white political movement must do 2 main things : a) politically organize whites to push for their explicit racial interests, and b) turn non-whites against each other in order to break up the coalition that our alien/traitor elite’s political power is based on. Once we stop giving tax dollars and jobs to these blacks and browns, they will realize the jig is up and become increasingly competitive for what few scraps remain. When the screw-whitey-coalition breaks up there will be no anti-white voting bloc and we can play the non-whites off against each other just as our overlords have played them against us. That’s right my friends, diversity is OUR strength.

In short, instead of trying to simply halt the trends set in place by the left, we actually use them and redirect these ‘energy flows’ of managed ethnic conflict in a way that would benefit whites. That’s called finessing it!

Read Full Post »

Below I link to a video of an interesting discussion held in the lavish mansion of Jim Rogers, between himself, Marc Faber and another guy who could be considered a lightweight compared to those two. I’m not fascinated with economics like some but I want to talk about one comment I heard them make in particular.

If you go to 0.53 on the video, they talk about the EU and its economic situation. And of course, one of the issues economists always outline in 1st world countries (that are white) is that the population is falling and they need immigrants to move in and make up for the low birthrates.

Marc Farber points out that Eastern Europe will provide many workers to help with this problem, but Jim Rogers goes him one better and says that what Europe really should do is bring in Turkey, because they have a young population of 70 million who could come in and do the job instead.

As I alluded to above, you always hear arguments for immigration, but they never say that non-white countries need it. That much is simple (though it should be repeated when this subject comes up in conversation).

What I really wanted to talk about is the deeper issue of what Jim Rogers’s comments say about how we think about people, and societies.

Jim Rogers says that the Europeans probably won’t bring in Turkey because Turks aren’t white and their not Christians (“Who cares if their not Christians.“, Rogers says). Who cares indeed.

This is an example of how we view people in our modern world. They are merely tax payers, consumers, voters, producers. They are only economic units defined in wholly materialistic terms. It is a symptom of how sick our society is that we should think this opinion Rogers makes is anything other than insane.

How on earth could you fundamentally alter the ethnic, racial, cultural and religious make up of a society for economic gain? If the birthrates are below replacement level – let them be below replacement level! Who cares. How could you take a homogeneous country and make it diverse, (beleaguered by all the social and political discord that such societies are) just to see a few extra percentage points on some stupid GDP report? And what are the long term economic consequences of this 3rd world immigration? Is it really even so great in the short term?

Aside from the fact that this is GENOCIDE, it is wrong on another level as well. It is wrong to see a society as simply an economic producer. These may be economies, but what you are really talking about are NATIONS. These are societies that have developed over centuries and have in most cases, fought some pretty nasty wars just to survive and be independent.

People are not merely economic units

A nation (a people) and the political state which is erected to represent its interests, is organic. It is a living, breathing thing. People have value, in part, because they are descended from a particular ethnic group. Humans are not interchangeable. A person from a foreign group may not seem especially valuable to you. But for his fellow people he is. Norway is Norwegian and that actually means something. It gives the country its character, different from any other. If you move immigrants in and demand ‘integration‘, you begin the destruction of that unique nation.

Even the religious basis of evaluating people would be better. At least that’s based on something ethereal rather than just economic output. Whether you see people as children of God, or inheritors of a unique racial/ethnic character (the consequent of which is culture), as Yoda once said “Luminous beings are we”.

Read Full Post »

Maelstrom is a dark, subversive film which portrays our modern, cosmopolitan culture as the degenerate swamp that it really is. It is also a story of guilt and redemption.

The movie opens up with one of the most gruesome and disturbing scenes I have ever seen. Our protagonist, Bibi, is in the process of having an abortion. This scene is the most graphic depiction of abortion I have ever seen in any movie. Come to think of it, it’s the only depiction of abortion I have ever seen in a movie (we literally see the fetal tissue being sucked through the tube). Any time abortion is portrayed in this honest and realistic way it is automatically anti-abortion, regardless of the directors intent.

This scene is followed by Bibi going through the post abortion sickness. Her feminist friend is coaching her through the whole recovery and she offers Bibi advice on how to deal with it. She tells Bibi she must deny it’s reality, deny that it ever happened. Basically, pretend that it did not happen, just ignore it and go on with your (selfish) life. When Bibi asks her friend how many abortions she has had she is not even able to remember at first : “Two … no wait … Three”.

Bibi attempts to deal with the aftermath of the abortion. She eventually takes some drugs (ecstasy, I think), goes to a dance-club, and picks up a guy who she takes back to her place for some promiscuous sex. None of this, of course, is fulfilling or helpful for her.

During this confusion or “maelstrom” which Bibi is caught in, she drives aimlessly through the city one night. She accidentally hits a man and then leaves the scene of the accident. She goes through a period of deep guilt over this accident, not dissimilar to the aftermath of the abortion.

Eventually she meets and falls in love with a nice guy who is a diver. It turns out that this mans father was recently killed in a hit and run. Bibi is confronted with the guilt of not only having killed a man, but the father of the man she loves. Ultimately, she must tell him, for the guilt is eating her up inside. But if she does, she fears he will leave her.
It is important to explain just what this man means to Bibi, and what, I think, he symbolizes. If we contrast Bibi’s life with the diver’s, we find that the two lovebirds have very different backgrounds.

Early on in the movie we get an idea of what Bibi’s family life is like. She gives an interview to some journalist and is asked about being the daughter of a famous fashion designer (or something). She expresses hostility to her father – she shows nothing but pessimism and alienation from her family. When she runs into some financial trouble with her clothing business, she goes to her yuppie brother (who is also a successful, wealthy businessman of some sort) for help. He shows no concern whatsoever for her plight. In fact he is too busy with a telephone call to pay her much mind as she sits in his posh office asking for help. There is no love or sense of obligation in Bibi’s family. They are all disconnected, cosmopolitan yuppies.

The diver, however, is almost from a different planet. He and his father both work jobs that are connected with the sea; he a diver and his father a fish monger. And you get the sense that they are from some rural area, rather than jaded city folk. He expresses a great deal of love and sense of connection with his father and their way of life. It is interesting that in both Bibi and her boyfriend’s case the apple didn’t fall far from the tree; Bibi entered the quintessentially cosmopolitan and decadent world of fashion. Her boyfriend took to the seas, a decidedly un-cosmopolitan, un-modern type of occupation. And he feels a deep sense of tradition and purpose in his and his fathers work. Bibi seems to have no similar feelings about her job, or her family. Bibi’s world is the modern cosmopolitan swamp that typifies life in those multi-racial hell holes that were once centers of Western culture we call cities. Her boyfriend’s world seems traditional and wholesome by comparison.

But why would the film-makers decide to begin the movie with Bibi having an abortion? Perhaps the abortion and the accidental hit-and-run are connected. Bibi committed two crimes and her guilt over the accident is one and the same as her guilt over the abortion. After all, when they sucked her child out of her womb, they put the remains in a cardboard box and then incinerated it in a furnace. At the end of the movie, Bibi and the fisherman use a cardboard box to hold the fathers ashes, which they scatter at sea. Or maybe the abortion is simply meant to  be a part of the degenerate culture she is trapped in; the antithesis of which she finds in this man.

This movie is extremely critical of our modern culture. As I mentioned above, just watch the first 15 minutes of this movie and try and tell me it is not automatically anti-abortion. (There is a scene during the recovery from the “procedure”, in which she and her friend are braiding each others hair and one of them is signing an old Scandinavian folk song; somehow, one of them calls to mind this beautiful Norwegian melody from the distant past that is a million miles removed from the modern swamp they are submerged in. It is heartbreaking. Her family life is non-existent and her life as a fashion designer in the big city is the stereotype of the rootless cosmopolitan lifestyle. She finds love in a simple fisherman who is far removed from the twisted world of yuppie brothers, feminists friends, promiscuous sex, and abortion clinics under which she suffers. Hopefully, in finding him, she secedes from that world.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »